Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Note the edits above. As far as the claim to ignorance, I see that for precisely what it is: projection.

Come back and talk to me when you've actually learned something about systems thinking. Thankfully, though, you're uninformed opinions are thankfully meaningless since you have absolutely no say so over what we get to do in our country.

By the way, you should be careful about spouting off statistics to people. You don't know who or what you are dealing with or their history. My family has been personally and tragically affected by this debate. So bear in mind that your "high minded" liberality here is offensive to me on a visceral level. What you are arguing for has literally resulted in death in my family; and worse, I have other family that are part of your "statistics." You don't know what you are talking about.

I do. I've lived it.

But keep preaching and making assumptions about people you don't know.

I quoted stats, taken from the the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Centre for Disease Control. These are facts, not numbers pulled out of a top hat for the mere sake of it, you may not like what these figures show but it doesn't change the statistics.

I'm sorry that you have seen and lived through a horrible situation, I do not know exactly what you are talking about but I can assure you that I have lived through and seen some pretty tragic, life changing experiences and on a very personal level if that is where we are taking this, I am very grateful and lucky that there were no guns involved otherwise there is a very strong possibility I would not be here.

Emotions get very high on issues such as this, but every single person has a right to their opinion on gun control and restrictions and every right to voice it. Pure emotive argument should not be substituted for logical argument.

On a side note, I am not a liberalist, I do not side with left wing politics here in Australia or your country, but I am not a conservative either. I am very interested in politics but I do not take a stand on either side, both sides have policies that I agree and dis-agree on. Both sides distort the issues and use propaganda to suit them when they desire, that is politics for you. I look at the issues and and policies at hand and base my opinions on what I think is right and just. In doing so, my particular opinions sway on both sides of politics. Does this make me a fence sitter, maybe, but I have never and will never substitute my opinion for that of a particular political party, an individual, a church denomination or whatever because when you throw all your eggs in one basket, never questioning, never walking to the beat of your own drum, you run into the very dangerous path of being controlled and blindly following beliefs or policies that you otherwise perhaps would not based solely on the fact that it is your political party's policy, or your church's belief or your mothers/fathers/wife's opinion.

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

Melanie wrote: What I found quite interesting is how conservative right-wing Christians use the bible and quote it exhaustingly to promote their ideals against abortion and homosexuality (I am not in agreeance on either) but when it comes to fire-arms they are often quoted as saying it is their God-given right, leaving out all scripture on violence, self-defense or otherwise when Jesus made it very clear on the question of whether violence is an acceptable response to violence on whether arming ourselves with fists and swords and guns is the way to protect ourselves against fists and swords and guns. Nonviolence-turning the other cheek, keeping your sword in its scabbard even under threat, loving your enemy- is a a centerpiece of Jesus's Gospel. His words are crystal clear.

Luke 22:36-38
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”

So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”

And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Self-defense is Biblical, Melanie. Not only that but look at the facts, Russia has more gun laws than the US, yet more gun crime, Switzerland has far less strict gun laws, yet less gun crime. Meanwhile, criminals statistically (and by own admission) are less likely to mug a person or rob a place if they think the other people are armed.

The guns aren't the problem.

(On a level I do agree with you, I don't own a gun, don't want one. However I can't pretend it isn't morally right to own one. I don't want to put words in God's mouth, but I think Pacificism is closer to His message than straight Pacifism).

I never said whether I thought it was moral or immoral to own a gun just that it is responsible for a government to have strict regulation surrounding gun ownership.

Ahh yes the two countries Russia and Switzerland that are constantly referred to in the pro-gun debate. Please show me your stats as the the research I have done not just now but previously has shown an entirely different situation.
Firstly it is completely false to claim that Switzerland has far less strict gun laws. Every male in Switzerland has to join the army, every able bodied male has military training. Before they can join strict mental and psychological testing is done and criminal background checks. When their service has ended they can choose to keep their gun but it is sent to the weapons factory to have the fully automatic function removed, then returned. It has been for many years that they can then take the gun home but that tide is changing the county is now changing that to house them in depots, that they can access for shooting (a major pastime in Switzerland) and hunting then returned to the depot. They have put these changes into place because they realise that having a gun in the home highly increases the chances of homicide and suicide.
For the other citizens of Switzerland it is very similar to Australia you must cite your reason for wanting a gun, no citizen has the the automatic right to one. You must prove why you need one, background checks are done, if you are granted a permit then every gun is registered. This permit is subject to re-evaluation and can be taken away at any time. In doing so the mentally unstable and criminally minded individuals are not given access to guns hence the low gun crime rate. This argument surrounding Switzerland only strengthens the argument for tighter gun regulations.

Now Russia, have you noticed that every stat is taken from a 1996 and 2009 projection. Then it is only "killings" that are quoted not specific gun related homicide, the reason for this is because Russia very rarely releases this info and when they do they do not break down their mortality rates. If you look on the UN firearms mortality death rates Russia is there but no stats are entered. Is there high gun crime, absolutely, organised crime is rife and no doubt there is a bunch of firearm deaths relating to this, perhaps that is why they keep it under wraps but the point is we don't know. We don't have the statistics so I'm not too sure how so many websites claim that Russia has strict regulations (ha, try regulating organised crime) but so many gun deaths. It is propaganda, they have pulled these so-called stats outta their backsides.

This discussion reminds me of the one we had after the Newtown school shootings, which killed 26 or so, many of them children. One one hand are the foreigners (who've undoubtedly never visited the USA and are ignorant of its culture, and don't even know they are ignorant) and, on the other hand, the Americans. If my memory serves me correctly, in the Newtown discussion, all the aliens were for the control of firearms - as is practiced in their countries - and all the Americans were defending their Second Ammendment right to bear arms. (There was only one dissenting voice in the US camp, but he was an ''American'' by virtue of naturalization: he was a vinyl couch masquerading as leather, and I chided him on that.)

So...Knock it off, aliens. Listen to what your American friends are saying and accept it. Don't argue, just accept it.

FL

How about let's just use a little common sense and logic over this issue.

Comparing what laws might work in places like Britain, in which there are FAR fewer guns is to not understand the situation in America. Here, for well over 100 years vast millions of guns have been legally owned in this country. A very high percentage of families have guns that their grandfathers owned. Point is that if you stopped ALL legal gun ownership today, the ability for criminals to obtain guns would remain as easy as pie - and would be for a hundred years or more to come. And today, no U.S. criminal has to LEGALLY buy a gun! Why? Simply, because there are so many of them, they don't have to. It's easy to buy a cheap, stolen gun. So no matter what we do about gun sales, criminals, robbers, thieves and murderers will always desire guns, find them easy to obtain, and many of these criminals would just love to know that they are armed and law-abiding citizens are not. So the criminals are all obviously for banning guns. So is it not a no-brainer that if a law-abiding citizen, who has no criminal background, cannot arm himself for protection against the bad guys (who would easily remain able to buy and obtain illegal weapons) that law-abiding citizens who could not legally own a weapon would be defenseless against such armed criminals? It this were to happen, I can guarantee you that home invasions, robberies and murders will skyrocket.

Here's the misunderstanding of the "ban the guns" crowd - at least in America: They think that this will make it much harder for criminals or those with bad intentions to obtain guns. All it means is that ALL criminals would then get their guns on the immensely abundant black market. Think the average bad guy thinks, "Gee, I'm gonna have to quit robbing people because I can no longer keep or obtain a gun legally?" Anyone who thinks stricter gun control will keep American criminals from easily getting their hands on guns is incredibly naive. And then we won't be able to protect our families from those armed to the teeth. And armed criminals that know that their prey has no defense would exponentially explode violence, robbery and crime stats. It's a no-brainer! The lawless, thieving, murdering would be immensely emboldened, as they would have no reason to fear if they know there is a high percentage probability that their targeted victims are un-armed.

OK, what about the lune who goes to a school and mows down kids? Effective mental health background checks and the proper sharing of information would go far to keep LEGAL weapons out of such hands, but, if so determined, such individuals could still illegally obtain a gun. Or use a knife. Or take their car and plow into kids at a school bus stop. Or a bomb. Or kill by arson. You can make societal protections against such mentally disturbed people better - but you'll never stop the determined, crazy person from killing. Period! And protective officers in all schools should have proper weapons, training and quick access to hopefully stop a shooter. All schools should have ONE entrance that has a "buzz through" door with a guard monitoring who is approaching. In so many schools, it would be simple to walk straight in the main entrance carrying a rifle, and to have easy access to the classrooms. Crazy!

OK, so should everyone be able to keep a bazooka or a grenade launcher? No, because these are extremely rare - not a typical threat by the typical criminal - which is what we should be able to do: to legally protect ourselves with a defense TYPICAL of the TYPICAL armed threat.

What about high-round weapons? Reduce the rounds available in a clip, and the clever would simply plan to bring additional clips. Now some higher end weapons, not typically a threat, might be something to discuss. But my point is the innocent, law-abiding citizen should be able to meet the typical threats that are out there. And no gun ban is going to reduce the threat posed by the massive millions of weapons already in the hands of vast millions.

[devil's advocate]Wouldn't massive gun buy backs get illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals?[/devil's advocate]

RickD wrote:[devil's advocate]Wouldn't massive gun buy backs get illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals?[/devil's advocate]

Depends what the stats say, is all violent crime done with illegal firearms or is the majority done with legal firearms. How did the criminals get the firearms, did they buy them legally themselves or did they steal them from people who had them legally or did they buy them on the black market. I think you will find if you look into the stats that most violent crime is done with legitimately purchased firearms and like all other countries in the world black market firearms are very hard to come by.

All gun buy backs do is produce piles of mostly junk, rusting guns - typically, grandpa's old "pea shooter." Few give up modern, quality weapons. Political correctness never keeps people safe - although it might make them FEEL safe.

I am, however, for the giving up of guns for those that have alcoholics, drug addicts or dangerously mentally ill persons in their house. And for people too dumb to not lock up their guns from their children.

Philip wrote:All gun buy backs do is produce piles of mostly junk, rusting guns - typically, grandpa's old "pea shooter." Few give up modern, quality weapons. Political correctness never keeps people safe - although it might make them FEEL safe.

I am, however, for the giving up of guns for those that have alcoholics, drug addicts or dangerously mentally ill persons in their house. And for people too dumb to not lock up their guns from their children.

Well at least that's a start, the next step would be to ban the sale of all new semi and auto weapons, restrict the amount of ammunition you can purchase, guns must be registered to the owners and have a voluntary buy back scheme for older semi and auto firearms with an amnesty of a few years after that it becomes illegal and you lose you licence if caught and risk fines or jail time.

Not everything has to happen at once, just small incremental changes that tighten the laws and people will eventually get used to it.

Depends what the stats say, is all violent crime done with illegal firearms or is the majority done with legal firearms. How did the criminals get the firearms, did they buy them legally themselves or did they steal them from people who had them legally or did they buy them on the black market. I think you will find if you look into the stats that most violent crime is done with legitimately purchased firearms

Well, if criminals are using legal guns or stolen ones, you sure better have some protection against them. And if you don't know how to safely use and store a weapon, you probably are better off without it. If someone breaks into your front door, you better shoot and ask the questions later. You must assume that anyone crazy enough to do a home invasion is likely crazy, high and armed.

and like all other countries in the world black market firearms are very hard to come by.

What kind of stuff are you smoking, Daniel?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:[devil's advocate]Wouldn't massive gun buy backs get illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals?[/devil's advocate]

Depends what the stats say, is all violent crime done with illegal firearms or is the majority done with legal firearms. How did the criminals get the firearms, did they buy them legally themselves or did they steal them from people who had them legally or did they buy them on the black market. I think you will find if you look into the stats that most violent crime is done with legitimately purchased firearms and like all other countries in the world black market firearms are very hard to come by.

Then again playing devil's advocate, I'd say if the guns used in the crimes were legally obtained(at least at some point), then it would be a good argument for stricter gun laws. If legal guns are the guns used to commit the crimes, then making them more difficult to get legally, should reduce crime.

But this is a moot point if the guns used to commit the crimes are obtained illegally.

I know a lot of people here use stolen guns to commit crimes.

And in one local case recently, a woman who had her house broken into recently, and was very frustrated, took matters into her own hands. She had just had her house broken into again, took her legally owned gun, and shot someone who was sitting in a vehicle on her street. She thought someone in the vehicle robbed her house, or she was just too angry to think straight. That left a young father dead, because she played vigilante and killed the wrong person. IMO, that was a good example of how stricter gun laws would've saved a life.

And in one local case recently, a woman who had her house broken into recently, and was very frustrated, took matters into her own hands. She had just had her house broken into again, took her legally owned gun, and shot someone who was sitting in a vehicle on her street. She thought someone in the vehicle robbed her house, or she was just too angry to think straight. That left a young father dead, because she played vigilante and killed the wrong person. IMO, that was a good example of how stricter gun laws would've saved a life.

And just because there are cases were guns are improperly or incompetently handled, stored and there are tragedies stemming from such, you just don't try to prevent those by laws that will only keep the criminals armed. You prosecute negligent and careless gun owners. Leave your gun out and your five-year-old kills his little buddy: AUTOMATIC and significant jail time. You just aren't going to successfully legislate "stupid."

Philip wrote:How about let's just use a little common sense and logic over this issue.

Comparing what laws might work in places like Britain, in which there are FAR fewer guns is to not understand the situation in America. Here, for well over 100 years vast millions of guns have been legally owned in this country. A very high percentage of families have guns that their grandfathers owned. Point is that if you stopped ALL legal gun ownership today, the ability for criminals to obtain guns would remain as easy as pie - and would be for a hundred years or more to come. And today, no U.S. criminal has to LEGALLY buy a gun! Why? Simply, because there are so many of them, they don't have to. It's easy to buy a cheap, stolen gun. So no matter what we do about gun sales, criminals, robbers, thieves and murderers will always desire guns, find them easy to obtain, and many of these criminals would just love to know that they are armed and law-abiding citizens are not. So the criminals are all obviously for banning guns. So is it not a no-brainer that if a law-abiding citizen, who has no criminal background, cannot arm himself for protection against the bad guys (who would easily remain able to buy and obtain illegal weapons) that law-abiding citizens who could not legally own a weapon would be defenseless against such armed criminals? It this were to happen, I can guarantee you that home invasions, robberies and murders will skyrocket.

Here's the misunderstanding of the "ban the guns" crowd - at least in America: They think that this will make it much harder for criminals or those with bad intentions to obtain guns. All it means is that ALL criminals would then get their guns on the immensely abundant black market. Think the average bad guy thinks, "Gee, I'm gonna have to quit robbing people because I can no longer keep or obtain a gun legally?" Anyone who thinks stricter gun control will keep American criminals from easily getting their hands on guns is incredibly naive. And then we won't be able to protect our families from those armed to the teeth. And armed criminals that know that their prey has no defense would exponentially explode violence, robbery and crime stats. It's a no-brainer! The lawless, thieving, murdering would be immensely emboldened, as they would have no reason to fear if they know there is a high percentage probability that their targeted victims are un-armed.

OK, what about the lune who goes to a school and mows down kids? Effective mental health background checks and the proper sharing of information would go far to keep LEGAL weapons out of such hands, but, if so determined, such individuals could still illegally obtain a gun. Or use a knife. Or take their car and plow into kids at a school bus stop. Or a bomb. Or kill by arson. You can make societal protections against such mentally disturbed people better - but you'll never stop the determined, crazy person from killing. Period! And protective officers in all schools should have proper weapons, training and quick access to hopefully stop a shooter. All schools should have ONE entrance that has a "buzz through" door with a guard monitoring who is approaching. In so many schools, it would be simple to walk straight in the main entrance carrying a rifle, and to have easy access to the classrooms. Crazy!

OK, so should everyone be able to keep a bazooka or a grenade launcher? No, because these are extremely rare - not a typical threat by the typical criminal - which is what we should be able to do: to legally protect ourselves with a defense TYPICAL of the TYPICAL armed threat.

What about high-round weapons? Reduce the rounds available in a clip, and the clever would simply plan to bring additional clips. Now some higher end weapons, not typically a threat, might be something to discuss. But my point is the innocent, law-abiding citizen should be able to meet the typical threats that are out there. And no gun ban is going to reduce the threat posed by the massive millions of weapons already in the hands of vast millions.

I think common sense is definitely the way to approach this subject. I don't think guns should be banned, just regulated with background checks as a measure to limit them falling into the hands of the criminally minded and mentally unstable. Is it 100% fool proof of course not! Could they obtain a firearm by another means. Yes, but from looking at stats from around the world, background checks do make a significant difference to gun crime rates, does it abolish it, no.
Could mentally disturbed people still find another means to harm and kill, of course. Could a knife, or fork or whatever for that matter produce a kill rate in a limited amount of time that an automatic weapon could? Of course not.

People on here have spoken of thieves breaking into their homes, it's happened to me a number of times, and very recently. Where is the line drawn? Should guns only be used for protection in extreme dire cases where a persons life is imminently under threat? Or used on a perceived threat if someone breaks into your home to steal your wallet and phone, they might harm you, or they might be a shite of a kid that needs a good kick up the backside.

Does that not alarm you that your children would need to be protected to that level whilst attending school. One entrance with a metal detector and security officers, extensively trained to kill, with appropriate firearms to defend against the threat of automatic weapons. Perhaps the army should deploy their soldiers at every school in the US. America is the only country not only in western society but worldwide where those drastic measures are needed. Does that send out alarm bells?

Should guns be banned, no! Should you sit back and do nothing to ensure the safety of your children and citizens, of course not! There is a middle ground, an alternative that perhaps neither side of the political debate is embracing. It seems to me like it is a all or nothing scenario being proposed in the media, but common sense and well meaning citizens should be able to see thru the political hogwash and find a balance because what is happening within the society is clearly showing an imbalance in the system and culture.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I appreciate the edit. I'm not going to further edit mine, though. As I said, this is something I live with. I just hope that in the future you and others of your persuasion will think twice and check your assumptions before you make such statements. They can be extremely hurtful.

What do you mean I don't live with it, we had out of control gun laws at one stage where they were easy to get and they were high powered semi auto rifles, since the tightening of our laws safety has improved. I lived through times where it was more dangerous, now I live in better circumstances. Do you think I have never had a gun shoved in my face or been in fear for my life, I don't think I have made any assumption and you seem to be making plenty.

You know your using the same logic as pro-abortionists,

you can't comment on abortion because you don't have a womb

.

Do you have close friends and family members who have been killed or saved from being killed by personal guns (against guns owned by officials like the police or military, I mean)? If so, then fine. If not, then I stand by what I said. You don't live with this and you're speaking out of high minded ignorance.

And no, I'm not using the same logic as abortionists (other than the quip about "don't like guns? don't buy one"). My point was much more practical. You are not an American. As such, I don't have to worry about you casting a vote for a politician or for an initiative that would deprive me of my wife's protection. So while we can talk about this, it's strictly an academic debate between you and me. It is absolutely nothing more. It's meaningless. When I'm talking to a fellow American, the debate has meaning. This American has a degree of power which he or she can use to put my wife and children in harm's way. Once again, you can't do that. Your opinion doesn't count.

Beyond that, I would add, though, that not being American, you don't understand American culture. You might study it. You might have visited here. But you haven't grown up with it. You're just an outsider talking as if you were an insider. And hey, you have the right to your opinion, but I just don't take terribly seriously critiques on American culture from non-Americans. You don't know us. There's an old saying about walking a mile in someone's shoes. Your country's experience with guns and your banning of them doesn't give you one ounce of credibility to discuss this matter. The difference in that an abortion is obvious. I don't have to be a woman to know that murdering a child is wrong. The only way for you to make the connection is to try to suggest that owning a gun is equally objectively wrong. Feel free to try to make that argument. I won't even bother responding to it. You can have the floor uncontested, because to try to make it would just show how terribly confused you are. Put differently, rather than responding to or refuting such an argument, I simply hold up the presence of the argument itself as evidence of your own moral confusion. So, once again, the charge does not stick.

With all that said, I will give you the one absolutely basic, incontrovertible fact that has persuaded me on this issue, and I will do so by putting it to you in the form of this question and answering it for myself:

Someone threatens you or your loved one with a gun. This person has already demonstrated that they are going to shoot (think of the school shootings, if you want just one of any number of examples). Sitting next to you is a high minded liberal, and next to him is a loaded gun. The scenario is simple. If he hands you the gun, you have time to shoot the killer and save your family. If he does not, you will watch your family die. So, the question: do you ask for the gun? And as a follow up, what if this high minded liberal refuses to give it to you if you do ask?

For me, I ask for the gun. And if the high minded liberal refuses, I am going to do whatever I have to do to get it, including attack him if necessary.

Now, perhaps you are so idealistic that you are willing to let your wife and children be murdered. I don't see one bit of honor in that, and if that's your ideals, then I find it shameful and am glad that you are not my neighbor. A man who will not protect those he loves is a coward. The problem I have with liberals is that they are trying to deny us that protection. When people are coming at us, they are trying to hold the gun out of our reach. As such, liberals on this matter are actually complicit in the murder of my loved ones. They are worse than cowards. What they are doing here is positively sinful. So, daniel--you are the high minded liberal between me and my gun. The shooter is coming after my two children. I'm asking for my weapon to protect my kids. Do you hand it to me or not?

Daniel,
To add to what Jac was asking, I'd like to know why you think it's wrong to defend the lives of your family if at all possible. Do you really think God wants us to sit back and watch our wives and children get injured or killed, if we can prevent it?

You certainly have every right to defend your family but the fact that we are having this discussion in the first place is desperately sad. The fact that you live in a supposedly developed country where you feel that you need to have a gun to feel safe is desperately sad which ever way you try and spin it. You can come up with all the hypotheticals you want but to imply someone is a coward or sinful just because they hope for a better world is a little unkind. And as far as I concerned it is not What Christ would have wanted for people to have guns. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. You are right I don't understand because I do not live America and if that is what it is like day by day that you live in fear so you have to carry a gun then I am glad I don't. Throwing more guns into a situation is not a solution. What is the solution, get on with our great commission as if our lives depended on it.